Sullivan fight of the week Sullivan Burke

Thanks Bit. You can be logical. Maybe All I need to do is to produce more news reads for common ground.

Now Mcvey won't directly reply here. That's who he is. And if he does, I predict something completely unrelated to what he said " He didnt "flat out say he would have no chance against Jeffries" that is intentional deceit. "

^^ Um, Yes he did.

 

"This is what Sullivan, who was ringside, said about the Johnson v Jeffries fight,the fight you said was even after 10 rounds!

The fight of the century is over and a black man is the undisputed champion of the world. It was a poor fight as fights go, this less than 15-round affair between James J. Jeffries and Jack Johnson. Scarcely has there ever been a championship contest that was so one-sided. All of Jeffries much-vaunted condition amounted to nothing. He wasn't in it from the first bell tap to the last …. The negro had few friends, but there was little demonstration against him. (Spectators) could not help but admire Johnson because he is the type of prizefighter that is admired by sportsmen. He played fairly at all times and fought fairly. … What a crafty, powerful, cunning left hand (Johnson) has. He is one of the craftiest, cunningest boxers that ever stepped into the ring. … They both fought closely all during the 15 rounds. It was just the sort of fight that Jeffries wanted. There was no running or ducking like Corbett did with me in New Orleans (1892). Jeffries did not miss so many blows, because he hardly started any. Johnson was on top of him all the time.... (Johnson) didn't get gay at all with Jeffries in the beginning, and it was always the white man who clinched, but Johnson was very careful, and he backed away and took no chances, and was good-natured with it all. … The best man won, and I was one of the first to congratulate him, and also one of the first to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the beaten man.."






Seems he was watching a different fight to the one you have seen clips of.
No time to discuss more, going to the theatre ,will get back to this later.

 

Didn't I tell you he would try to change the subject! LOL in your face. Liar. What happened Tony? You made a false auction, and I served it back in your face? What else is new?

As for one-sided championship fights, there were several greater than this one. Sullivan needs a history lesson as some were one sided and much shorter.

Jeffries returned 35 out of the ring for six years and overweight. He won a few rounds according to the press, was even on others, and drew first blood. Not bad considering the heat of the day and his opponents being active and in his prime.

PS: I watch films here, you seldom if ever do.

 

Thanks for posting it.

I agree Sullivan himself was not a scientific fighter, and I'll also agree Jeffries was better than him.

That said there definitely was other fighters of his period and before who didn't just stand up and fight in the "old style" as he calls it. And there are plenty of later fighters, some of nearly every generation, with decent levels of success without much science. Max Baer and Wilder and pretty obvious examples.

I can post other examples later, but here's one easy to find pre-Sullivan, (an aging) Jem Mace Vs Tom Allen
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Jem_Mace_vs._Tom_Allen

I think it shows there was already some decent skills.

The styles, the rules, they adapt, and quality goes up and down at different times, but boxing had been around for a while, in various forms, and people knew how to box. The basics of dodging blows doesn't change much, blocking only really changes as gloves got larger, fients are still there

 

It's funny, this account both says Burke toyed with him, and the Olympic club people scored it for Corbett, it also calls Corbett the clubs pet though, and it was his club, so probably some accusation of bias there.
https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=DAC18870828.2.10&txq=jack+burke+corbett

A the very least it sounds like Burke's skills were around the same level as Corbett's.

Do you have any more detailed versions?

 

Interestingly I also see on CBZ Mike Clearly bested Corbett in an exhibition, but Corbett was still a young amateur, so I don't think you can take much from it.

 

Burke probably edged Slavin in their first fight as well as Cleary.

 

I cant find the quote in Pollack's book on Jeffries

The quotes from Sullivan about Jeffries in the book are these.
"Jeffries is a great fighter.He has strength and lots of science and can make any fighter look 30 cents".
Asked if he was as good as himself he said," Well he 's just as good anyhow.I don't know whether he would be able to go a fight like that which I put up against Ryan or Kilrain.Fighting today is play business compared to what it was when I held the belt."1903.
"Jeffries is one of the greatest heavyweights this world ever saw,and there is no one today that has any show with him.They have got to get a bigger man than him to down him,but I do not see anyone at present who is good enough to meet him.I don't see how he can draw the color line,however.He has met colored boxers before now and I cannot see how he can bar them now.
I do not believe in white men meeting colored men,but the boxers never followed my example."1903.
I'm prepared to accept the quote you provided and on this particular occasion withdraw my personal remark about you ,.I still know you to be a liar, and in that my opinion will never change.

ps Jeffries did not win several rounds against Johnson I have the rounds by rounds newspaper summaries and the fight reports from Pollack's book I posted themseveral times ,just as I posted the fact that Johnson went into their contest with a split lip with a scab on it cause by a butt in sparring by Kid Cutler, all Jeffries did was knock off the scab I've told you this repeatedly, just like I've told you Johnson's affair with GunBoat Smith was just a sparring match but you keep repeating your lies over and over again, you are a compulsive liar and that is why I despise you.

 

What a backhanded compliment, and you still spinning away from the point of the thread! At least know you knew what Sullivan said.

You are prepared to accept the truth only because I showed it to you and you want to save face with some people here. Lets be honest McVey.

All you have to do is stop lying about me and in general and sharpen up on facts; then maybe you'll get the same without a backhanded compliment. I do give you some thumbs up icon's from time to time.

Several means more than one, which is what Jeffries did. He won the 4th and 9th ( Press says so ) and looked a bit better in rounds 1-3 based on aggression. Many shown rounds on film were close.

I've invited you to score Willard vs. Johnson rounds before; you have little interest in doing it. When there is film, you don't need to rely on the press.

 

" John L. Sullivan is a tradition of the ring but actually he was nothing more than a big, strong, tough, game fellow who knew little or nothing of what we consider boxing today. His losing fight with Corbett was the best illustration of his shortcomings." -HE Grant

Janitor,

Who says Jack Johnson didn't speak to a lot of people who were familiar with Sullivan? He might have better news on Sullivan than most here, so I would not dismiss him outright.

If you read my quote from Sullivan himself in 1907, he says the game became more scientific.

" I don't mind saying that I believe that the style of fighting today is far and away ahead of the old style ... Jeffries at his best and me at my best, Jeffries would have put it on me. I never was a really scientific fighter ... My game was the old game -- standing up and fighting and depending upon sheer power and pure strength and endurance to get by. I won most of my fights by rushing ... But if a big man today were to fight the same way I did and try those rushes on with a man like Jeffries he'd get slaughtered, that's all. " John L. Sullivan, 1907,

Sullivan said he was primarily a rush and trade type. Isn't that close to what Johnson is saying? I think so. Your reply to this is?

On Johnson, he's very unreliable ( a liar ) when it comes to himself, but his observations about others on boxing seem rather good.

 

QUOTE="Mendoza, post: 19089901, member: 19227"]What a backhanded compliment, and you still spinning away from the point of the thread! At least know you knew what Sullivan said.

You are prepared to accept the truth only because I showed it to you and you want to save face with some people here. Lets be honest McVey.

All you have to do is stop lying about me and in general and sharpen up on facts; then maybe you get the same without a backhanded compliment.

Several means more than one, which is what Jeffries did. He won the 4th and 9th ( Press says so ) and looked a bit better in rounds 1-3 based on aggression. Many shown rounds on film were close.

I've invited you to score Willard vs. Johnson rounds before; you have little interest in doing it. When there is film, you don't need to rely on the press.[/QUOTE]
I'm not intending to compliment you, I'm saying I accept Sullivan may have made that statement.
I'm not concerned what the general opinion here is of me and your opinion of me matters not a jot ,in fact I would prefer it if you regard me with the same loathing as I regard you.I've been collecting fight films for over 50 years and I saw what footage is available of Johnson before you were born.
I don't know where you get the idea I don't watch fights and I could care less. I've no interest in interacting with you except to highlight your bigotry and bias.
Bottom line you are a liar ,a coward, and a bigot. Now go and **** up another thread with your Jack Johnson hatred.